W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2006

[whatwg] <BIG> Element

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:14:20 +0100
Message-ID: <20060115151420.r7hzp1yinrc48gsg@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
Quoting "Eugene T.S. Wong" <lists.eugenetswong at gmail.com>:
>> but there is an attempt to redefine the small element with some 
>> semantic  meaning.
>
> If that is true, then I encourage the WHATWG to use another name, 
> such as  <FINEPRINT>ASDF</FINEPRINT>. It is a lot longer, but it does 
> convey more  semantics.

It does not. The "semantics" of an element are bound to the definition of it,
not to the name.


> In the above scenario, there are semantics, but there are no semantic 
>  elements to convey shouting. The elements are modifiable by CSS. I 
> suppose  that we could nest <STRONG> a few times, but I don't 
> recognize strong  emphasis as the same thing as shouting.

I think nested <em> elements are in order here. You don't really need 
<big> for
that. <big> does not represent "shouting" in any definition I've seen so far
and <em> comes pretty close as generic element.


> Also, it might be helpful to use <BIG> for math problems, without 
> having  to resort to MathML.

<big> can't possibly be defined to mean two different things while staying in
the same namespace. Well, I suppose it could be based on the context it is
placed in, but I think that would get confusing. Also, there is MathML.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 06:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:25 UTC